Search for: "Beattie v. Beattie"
Results 61 - 80
of 243
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 Mar 2018, 6:00 am
It was with that background in mind that the Texas Supreme Court decided Kappus v. [read post]
10 Jan 2018, 4:12 am
Defendant “may not shift to the client the legal responsibility it was specifically hired to undertake” (Escape Airports [USA], Inc. v Kent, Beatty & Gordon, LLP, 79 AD3d 437, 439 [1st Dept 2010] [internal quotation marks omitted]). [read post]
27 Dec 2017, 11:19 am
ONE MONTH INTO THE FIGHT OVER HEART AND SOUL NOT TO MENTION CONTROL OF THE CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAUDocket entry for 12/22 injunction hearing says "oral arguments heard. [read post]
27 Dec 2017, 11:19 am
ONE MONTH INTO THE FIGHT OVER HEART AND SOUL NOT TO MENTION CONTROL OF THE CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU Docket entry for 12/22 injunction hearing says "oral arguments heard. [read post]
4 Dec 2017, 6:58 am
Balfour Beatty Infrastructure, Inc. v. [read post]
23 Nov 2017, 12:41 pm
Beatty. [read post]
18 Nov 2017, 5:17 am
On July 26, 2017 the South Carolina Supreme Court, in the case of Doe v. [read post]
16 Nov 2017, 4:25 am
The legal malpractice case is first dismissed: “Plaintiff’s claim for legal malpractice in connection with an underlying settlement fails to state a cause of action in the absence of allegations that the “settlement . . . was effectively compelled by the mistakes of [defendant] counsel” (Bernstein v Oppenheim & Co., 160 AD2d 428, 430 [1st Dept 1990]) or the result of fraud or coercion (see Beattie v Brown & Wood, 243 AD2d 395 [1st Dept… [read post]
9 Oct 2017, 12:52 pm
That case (Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of South Carolina et al. v. [read post]
8 Oct 2017, 3:07 pm
That case (Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of South Carolina et al. v. [read post]
27 Sep 2017, 4:14 am
These factual allegations, as supplemented by plaintiffs’ papers in opposition to defendant attorney’s dismissal motion, sufficiently alleged a legal malpractice claim (see generally Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]; see Brooks v Lewin, 21 AD3d 731, 734 [1st Dept 2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 713 [2006]; Escape Airports [USA], Inc. v Kent, Beatty & Gordon, LLP, 79 AD3d 437 [1st Dept 2010]). [read post]
3 Sep 2017, 5:47 pm
The problem that underlies Chief Justice Beatty's legal conclusion is that it rests upon certain assumptions of fact that were contrary to those found by the trial court (e.g. [read post]
3 Sep 2017, 5:47 pm
The problem that underlies Chief Justice Beatty's legal conclusion is that it rests upon certain assumptions of fact that were contrary to those found by the trial court (e.g. [read post]
8 Aug 2017, 5:15 pm
In Moore v. [read post]
3 Aug 2017, 12:13 pm
Yesterday, almost two years after hearing arguments, the Supreme Court of South Carolina finally issued its decision in the case of The Protestant Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina, et al. v. [read post]
2 Aug 2017, 8:08 am
Verenes v. [read post]
11 Jul 2017, 1:55 pm
The conduct of Mr Beattie, which was considered by Webster J to amount to a device (see R v Eastleigh Borough Council, ex p. [read post]
13 Mar 2017, 4:00 am
Citing Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. [read post]
12 Mar 2017, 3:25 am
For the defendants: Tom Blackburn SC and Lyndelle Barnett instructed by Leanne Norman, Phil Beattie and Courtney Scallan of Banki Haddock Fiora. [read post]
21 Jul 2016, 1:54 pm
Consider, for example, Riggs v. [read post]
